Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Digital Event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023

January 27, 2023

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Digital Event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023

On January 25, 2023, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023. The hour-long panel discussion and audience Q&A was live-streamed on LinkedIn, and featured expert speakers including William Farrell, Jr. (WF), Co-Founder, Managing Director and General Counsel of Longford Capital, Laina Hammond (LH), Co-Founder, Managing Director and Senior Investment Officer of Validity Finance, and Louis Young (LY), Co-Founder and CEO of Augusta Ventures. The discussion was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC. The discussion spanned a broad spectrum of key issues facing the litigation funding industry in 2023. Below are some key takeaways from the event: RB: How does your underwriting change, given the varied risks across different legal sectors? Do you have different IRR requirements for different case types or jurisdictions?   LH: At various points in time in our process, we are going to be assessing the risk of total loss. Antitrust, treaty arbitration, patent cases are riskier. When we’re calculating expected risk of loss, we take into account the various factors that make a case more risky—jurisdiction, collectability, other factors that dictate the IRR range. That is how we tie the risk factor to IRR, so the returns reflect the risk commensurate for any situation. WF: At Longford, our underwriting process remains the same across all legal sectors.  But risk assessment is unique across opportunities.  We look at 50 different characteristics for risk assessment.  At Longford, and I imagine the same is true at funders like Validity and Augusta, there is a very strong demand for our financing, so we are able to pick only the most meritorious cases, rather than pricing risk for a range of cases. LY: We have a very controlled process in our underwriting, and it’s conducted in a very stock-standard framework. But that framework is a continual iterative process. Our underwriting changes as we resolve cases through wins and losses, where you learn things that you didn’t know in underwriting. If we had to build a portfolio like we did for our first portfolio, which was 60-70 investments with $200MM invested—if that took us three years to build at the time, it would take us four or five years now, given the fact that we’ve learned so many other things as we’ve invested. Changes in financial modeling have become far more complex and nuanced as to the particular cases, so the outcomes and scenarios that we run now are far more detailed. RB: The last prolonged recession helped jumpstart the litigation funding industry in the US. If we do have a prolonged recession, what do you see as the prospects for the industry this time around? Can we expect the same growth post-recession?  LH: I think it’s tricky to accurately predict the impact of recessions on specialty industries like Litigation Finance, especially when the recession arises out of complicated geopolitical factors. That said, it’s entirely likely that a recession provides a boost for demand.  Legal services will always be in demand, and the cost of legal disputes is going to continue to rise. In tough economic conditions, companies might be pushed to consider litigation finance as an alternative to the self-funding that they historically use for their litigation. This could also lead to an infusion of capital into the market, as investors look for ways to diversify into alternative assets that are uncorrelated to the broader market. LY: I don’t know if the last recession did jump start the industry. I remember one of the first trips I did across the U.S. – this was around 2014 or so. And there were a whole set of law firms who didn’t know about litigation funding, so they were taking on the risk themselves—they were in effect acting as litigation funders. I think what really spurred litigation funding was the entrepreneurial bent of these law firms, who said to themselves ‘ok we’ve been taking this risk on for our clients, and here is a way we can de-risk ourselves.’ It was that mindset, and it happened so quick. In 2014, I introduced myself, and it was like, ‘Nice to meet you, here’s the door.’ Then two years later, it was happening. You just had very savvy, sophisticated people within the law firms who saw litigation funding for what it was, and they’ve become champions of it. And those same law firms are championing litigation funding even more now, and that will spur the industry forward. RB: What insurance products look most interesting right now, and are there any you’d like to see in the future? WF: Over the past two years, the insurance industry seems to have identified our industry as a new and attractive source of business for the insurance industry. There are significant synergies and similarities between litigation finance investments and insurance products, and for the moment, insurance markets seem to be most comfortable placing insurance on judgement preservation, and that is because they perceive cases at that stage of the lifecycle to be more easily understood, evaluated, and priced. But other products are popping up every day—insurance wrappers, which can be around an entire fund, or offer judgement preservation or principal protection, or they could be more bespoke and wrapped around particular subsets of investments. Offering insurance products for individual investors within a fund, uniquely designed for that particular investor’s risk tolerances is on the horizon, and will be made available to investors and funds in our industry. At the end of the day, the costs of these products will be most important in determining whether the Litigation Finance industry will be able to find a way to work with the insurance industry. The cost of these products will be taken directly from the returns that might otherwise be achieved without insurance, and the evaluation of these costs against the risk that is being protected against, is what will determine whether insurance becomes a meaningful part of our business. RB: What are your thoughts on the 60 Minutes piece, and the resulting publicity for the industry? Is this a net-positive—all publicity is good publicity, or would the industry benefit from being more under-the-radar, as there might be a mainstream outcry over a single bad actor that could malign the entire industry? WF: The Litigation Finance industry has made great strides over the past 10 years, particularly when it comes to awareness and acceptance of our offerings among all of the effected constituencies. Litigation Finance also levels the economic playing field, to where disputes among companies are resolved on the merits, rather than on the financial wherewithal and strengths/weaknesses of the litigants. So it’s good for the legal system. I think that the more awareness we can achieve, the more acceptance and more use we will see. I am opposed to flying under the radar—I like the idea that the more that people know about our industry, the more they will see that we are doing good, because we are helping people access justice which might not otherwise be there for them.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Innsworth Loses High Court Challenge to £200M Mastercard Settlement Distribution

By John Freund |

The High Court has rejected litigation funder Innsworth's judicial review challenge to the Competition Appeal Tribunal's distribution of the £200M Merricks v Mastercard settlement, ending the first substantive test of a CAT settlement decision and handing class representative Walter Merricks what he called "a total victory."

As reported by Legal Futures, the CAT's January ruling allocated the first £100M to consumers, repaid Innsworth its estimated £46M outlay, and capped the funder's profit at 50% — roughly £23M — for a guaranteed total return of about £68M. In setting a 1.5x return, the tribunal noted that the settlement of a claim originally valued at £14bn was "very far from a success" for the 44M-member class.

Lord Justice Males rejected all three grounds of review, observing that a 50% profit "was not a bad result" for a funder that would likely have lost its entire investment had the case gone to another trial. Merricks accused Innsworth of seeking "to elevate its grab for profits over and above all other considerations," and said distribution to consumers can now begin. Innsworth, which is separately pursuing arbitration against Merricks, warned that inadequate funder returns will drive "a reallocation of capital towards lower-risk claims," and accused the CAT of acting as "a de facto regulator of the litigation funding market" while offering no clear guidance on permissible returns.

Winward Litigation Finance CIO Jeremy Marshall predicted the ruling "will certainly put the brakes on funders' appetites" for CAT claims.

Commercial

North Carolina Senate Approves Litigation Finance Ban, Sending HB 315 to the House

By John Freund |

While most state legislatures have pursued disclosure and registration regimes for litigation finance, North Carolina is advancing something far more drastic: an outright ban.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, North Carolina senators have approved legislation that bans litigation finance in the state, sending the measure to the state House.

The vehicle is House Bill 315, which began life as a "Gift Card Theft & Unlawful Business Entry" bill before being rewritten in the Senate as "an act to prohibit litigation investments in the civil justice system, to prevent the civil justice system from becoming a financial investment market." The amended bill makes it unlawful "to engage in litigation investment" in North Carolina or to furnish litigation investment to a party or counsel of record in a civil proceeding — defining litigation investment broadly as any provision of money for litigation fees, costs, or expenses in exchange for repayment contingent on the outcome.

The bill carves out narrow exceptions for contingency-fee arrangements, insurer obligations, nonprofit legal aid, non-contingent loans, and funding from family members. Its legislative findings lean heavily on national security concerns, citing the risk of undisclosed foreign persons and entities investing in domestic litigation.

The measure stands in sharp contrast to recent state activity elsewhere — Kansas, Michigan, and New Jersey have all advanced transparency-focused frameworks this year that regulate rather than prohibit the industry. If enacted, North Carolina would become one of the most restrictive litigation finance jurisdictions in the country, and industry critics have already characterized the gut-and-replace maneuver as a legislative bait-and-switch.

Commercial

Class Representative Moves to Withdraw UK Instrument-Maker Claims After Funding Falls Through

By John Freund |

A proposed UK collective action against major musical instrument manufacturers is collapsing for want of litigation funding — a concrete illustration of the financing squeeze facing claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

As reported by Law360, consumer rights advocate Elisabetta Sciallis applied on Wednesday to withdraw her proposed class action against Fender, Yamaha, and other musical instrument manufacturers, saying she had been unable to secure litigation funding despite years of effort.

Sciallis, a principal policy adviser at consumer group Which?, filed a series of proposed opt-out collective actions in 2022 on behalf of consumers who purchased musical instruments, following on from Competition and Markets Authority decisions fining several manufacturers for resale price maintenance. The claims had been stalled at the certification stage for years, and the tribunal had grown increasingly impatient: a March 2026 case management order listed a preliminary hearing for after June 5 specifically to determine the adequacy of the proposed class representative's funding and insurance arrangements.

The withdrawal underscores a broader theme in the UK collective actions regime. With the CAT tightening its scrutiny of certification and funder returns — and with the Innsworth-Mastercard distribution fight casting doubt on the economics of opt-out claims — funders have become increasingly selective about which collective proceedings they will back. For proposed class representatives unable to assemble a viable funding package, even claims that follow on from regulatory infringement findings may prove impossible to sustain.